Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb dropped in East Afghanistan
- Thread starter jwheat
- Start date
Wouldn't surprise me 1 bit if we authorized use of tactical nukes in Afghan first -- then used them -- and had a separate story ready to go to explain the few accounts that would leak about "non conventional weapons use"
if there ever was a place where the need for tac-nukes** was clear -- and the risk (radiation / clear knowledge of our use / info control on the battlefield) was "relatively low" ...
I'm NOT saying that's what this was
but
IF we "Go there" --- specifically in Afghanistan --- you'd get a story like this one
** use of tac-nukes could fall into a few categories - and I don't know all of them
there are also "micro nukes"
however I DO know that the Navy & my former employer (Air Force) would probably JOCKEY for position on how got to deploy them
Navy USED to have nuclear capable tactical tomahawks (Block II Variant) -- I don't THINK they're in the arsenal anymore even thought PLENTY of conventional ones are....
Air Force has a few options for tac-nukes:
B52's launched ALCM's (OLD cruise missiles developed in the late 70's and deployed in the 80's) and B61 bombs dropped from a B-1 or B52 would probably be the method.
Boeing recently upgraded the actuation / control systems to make the nuclear bombs more accurate....they'd probably love nothing more than a live deployment of that device to measure blast yield / accuracy etc
I know the Navy feeds classified telemetry and BDA data to at least one major defense contractor ----
it IS the M.I.C. after all
any who ---- hail to the MOAB I guess.....let's see if any video emerges ......if it does --- watch for pixelation in the feed.
(Although I always understood it that we DID use one in Iraq before this one -- stories could have been BS I Suppose.....or one weapon just mistaken for another)
if there ever was a place where the need for tac-nukes** was clear -- and the risk (radiation / clear knowledge of our use / info control on the battlefield) was "relatively low" ...
I'm NOT saying that's what this was
but
IF we "Go there" --- specifically in Afghanistan --- you'd get a story like this one
** use of tac-nukes could fall into a few categories - and I don't know all of them
there are also "micro nukes"
however I DO know that the Navy & my former employer (Air Force) would probably JOCKEY for position on how got to deploy them
Navy USED to have nuclear capable tactical tomahawks (Block II Variant) -- I don't THINK they're in the arsenal anymore even thought PLENTY of conventional ones are....
Air Force has a few options for tac-nukes:
B52's launched ALCM's (OLD cruise missiles developed in the late 70's and deployed in the 80's) and B61 bombs dropped from a B-1 or B52 would probably be the method.
Boeing recently upgraded the actuation / control systems to make the nuclear bombs more accurate....they'd probably love nothing more than a live deployment of that device to measure blast yield / accuracy etc
I know the Navy feeds classified telemetry and BDA data to at least one major defense contractor ----
it IS the M.I.C. after all
any who ---- hail to the MOAB I guess.....let's see if any video emerges ......if it does --- watch for pixelation in the feed.
(Although I always understood it that we DID use one in Iraq before this one -- stories could have been BS I Suppose.....or one weapon just mistaken for another)
Just read. The two in Japan. one was 12,000,000 kilos. The other was 15,000,000. The MOAB was 21,000 kilos.
Is that significantly more power than a bunch of well placed smaller (and cheaper) bombs? I obviously have no idea at all.
Not super sure this answers your question but the bomb they dropped weighed 21,600 lbs. 11,000 lbs of that bomb were explosives.
It was the largest non nuclear bomb ever used in combat so they say!
I watched both videos and I now have a moab in my pants.:americanflag:
I say we drop a few over there but save a couple for Detroit.
Alright, was just kidding.
I say we drop a few over there but save a couple for Detroit.
Alright, was just kidding.
Wyvern tell me what they're really doing with the chemical weapons in KY? There is no way they're destroying good nerve gas.
I'll hang up and listen. Tia.
I'll hang up and listen. Tia.
Just 21 K? Doesn't sound like the MOTHER OF ALL BOMBS to me -- more like the red-headed stepchild of an M-80.
I only recently learned that you have Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Lexington (I was applying for work and found it) --- I don't know much about what goes on in the Commonwealth to be honest.....there are no major Air Force installations in Ky that I'm aware of and that's my background.
I know a LITTLE about chemical weapons - just the major categories, some of the history, some of the storage sites in AL with railway (etc) access into Atlanta and other places.
But not sure what's going on in KY -- what have you heard?
the post about the WW2 atom bombs is right on -- those would be considered within the "tactical" range now
I don't think there's a set blast yield that = "tactical" though
I suppose it would be anything that provides the capability to knock out smaller, more precise targets
That -- and we also use the "Strategic Nuclear Weapon" designation for the biggest ones we still have (Minuteman III for the USAF -- "Peacekeeper" was mothballed when I was active duty" -- and I THINK Navy still has the Polaris and/or Poseidon missiles that are sub-launched.....I can never remember which one superseded the other but they don't have both)
Army USED to have small nukes and for a BRIEF period - the Neutron "bomb" via Lance Missiles (later - Pershing) in Europe - my brother was a missilier for them for a while.
So when I think "tactical nukes" -- I'm thinking anything from 1Kt up to probably 10 or 12 Kt
Nukes are fascinating and aside from working in two space command son's and still having an AF buddy who certifies ICBM solos -- I just keep studying it independently to ;learn more of the history (Eisenhower eta Atlas and Thor Missiles always fascinated me......Chrysler used to make one of the early IRBM's -- Redstone or Jupiter rockets.......can't recall which one they made)
I THINK the standard yield on conventional bombs runs around 1,000 # and maybe a 5,000 #/
So 21,000 is massive compared to that
But it's nowhere near the same range as a tactical nuke
(i.e. 21 Kt - 21,000 TONS of TNT as opposed to a 21,000 POUND bomb)
Probably comparable to a micro-nuke though
I don't know much about those -- just that they exist
Blast yield is probably < 1 Kt
I'd bet my Strat on it
Cool, thanks. I was basically wondering how the Hiroshima (15 Kt) and Nagasaki (21Kt) bombs stacked up to today's "tactical" nukes. Kind of sobering, really.
I'm talking about the single largest stockpile of killer mustard gas, sarin, vx, whatever in allllll of the land stored 30 miles south of Lexington. It's been decades in the works "destroying" this stuff. Initially, govt was simply trucking it out of town till the lil town threw a hissy fit and said "no way Jose". So, govt poured hundreds of millions into destroying the crap on site, despite the fact they *really* didn't want to do it. Anyway. They scrapped one plan to "burn" it and spent many more millions on a brand new plan to "drown" it. It's the most hilarious mess you ever did see, and it's scheduled to be completed in 2020, decades and many millions behind schedule. The last setback involved replacing *all* the welds because they were faulty and everybody would die if they didn't fix the bad welds. That cost 200million, iirc. Anyway, back on schedule, 2020 the end times are near.
Know a guy contractor who doesn't speak, much less lie, and he believes most of the chemicals have been trucked out, per their original plan - they even built a huge big *** new interest exit to accommodate the trucks, and provide a quicker route - and what they will destroy on site is a small amount of leaking canisters that are unsafe for transport.
Personally, I don't think there's anyway we destroy tons of perfectly good nerve gas. Especially when we're in the business of policing the world and making sure they don't have the ****. That would be just dumb. No telling what that stuff is worth.
I weedeated all of those bunkers of nerve gas back in the day.
What a pain in the ***. The deer out there, however, are friendly.
What a pain in the ***. The deer out there, however, are friendly.
They scrapped one plan to "burn" it and spent many more millions on a brand new plan to "drown" it. It's the most hilarious mess you ever did see, and it's scheduled to be completed in 2020
damn
I still think we ought to shoot that crap into space -- just 'aim' at the Sun maybe?:fire:
We still keep some weaponized smallpox and anthrax on hand from what I recall - so I'm SURE we'll keep some chemical weapons on hand
They're really just really ugly "area denial" weapons more so than actual "weapons of mass destruction" ..... (chem weapons that is) in my opinion
But I think there are a lot of variables that go into sound deployment and use ---- so launching sarin gas shells into a city and THEN charging in.....(after studying weather patterns for weeks / manipulating them where we can etc) ..... just isn't a great recipe for success ---- tactically, strategically nor diplomatically
going from chem-bio weapons to more modern applications is interesting too -- there's plenty of weapons we just don't have a lot of insight into that that are already online .....or quickly coming on line
weather manipulation is one of them
I don't think we're at the point where it's perfected into a 'weaponized' use but the media's not even hiding the "manipulation" angle of it anymore
seismic weapons are another
both have what I guess you could call a 'low tech' and 'hi tech' approach
optical invisibly is absolutely coming online if not here already - 'predator' style blending in with backgrounds and/or outright cloaking style invisibility
I know it sounds insane -- but the "moores law for weapons" (as I think of it) WILL sound crazy to people who don't spent time thinking about the topic
ask anyone what they think our most advanced weapon capabilities are -- see what they tell you.
seriously -- it's an innocent enough conversation.....you'll find that most people, if they HAVE an opinion -- will cite 70' and 80's stealth technology to you
I've just enough in bits and pieces here and there that I'm 100% confident on the idea that both optical invisibility and weather manipulation are here now - how refined it is I don't know......there's surely lots more that I have no idea about .... nanotechnology, busted up freakish genetic cloning experiments, large scale brainwave manipulation, project-blue-beam type stuff.......that's all (and then some) probably all going full steam ahead in some form or another
damn
I still think we ought to shoot that crap into space -- just 'aim' at the Sun maybe?:fire:
We still keep some weaponized smallpox and anthrax on hand from what I recall - so I'm SURE we'll keep some chemical weapons on hand
They're really just really ugly "area denial" weapons more so than actual "weapons of mass destruction" ..... (chem weapons that is) in my opinion
But I think there are a lot of variables that go into sound deployment and use ---- so launching sarin gas shells into a city and THEN charging in.....(after studying weather patterns for weeks / manipulating them where we can etc) ..... just isn't a great recipe for success ---- tactically, strategically nor diplomatically
going from chem-bio weapons to more modern applications is interesting too -- there's plenty of weapons we just don't have a lot of insight into that that are already online .....or quickly coming on line
weather manipulation is one of them
I don't think we're at the point where it's perfected into a 'weaponized' use but the media's not even hiding the "manipulation" angle of it anymore
seismic weapons are another
both have what I guess you could call a 'low tech' and 'hi tech' approach
optical invisibly is absolutely coming online if not here already - 'predator' style blending in with backgrounds and/or outright cloaking style invisibility
I know it sounds insane -- but the "moores law for weapons" (as I think of it) WILL sound crazy to people who don't spent time thinking about the topic
ask anyone what they think our most advanced weapon capabilities are -- see what they tell you.
seriously -- it's an innocent enough conversation.....you'll find that most people, if they HAVE an opinion -- will cite 70' and 80's stealth technology to you
I've just enough in bits and pieces here and there that I'm 100% confident on the idea that both optical invisibility and weather manipulation are here now - how refined it is I don't know......there's surely lots more that I have no idea about .... nanotechnology, busted up freakish genetic cloning experiments, large scale brainwave manipulation, project-blue-beam type stuff.......that's all (and then some) probably all going full steam ahead in some form or another
Hell yea. We do have cloaking technology. I thought we had planes with cloaked skin.
I also like the sound weapons where you disable enemies with a giant dog whistle thing.
All I know is there is nothing anybody could tell me to convince me our brilliant govt spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, on destroying chemical weapons. And if something like that were happening, you definitely would not know the details the operation.
* i believe they handed out mucho contracts to special people and then kept a lot of the chemicals.
The only other US stockpile was Pueblo Colorado in the middle of nowhere and they successfully burned the chemical agents.
Richmond is a big deal because it's the first time chemicals will be neutralized with water, and we all might die in the name of science.
*also, each part of town has big signs telling you what zone you are in, so if the crap hits the fan, you are supposed to know your zone and follow the plan. Also, the county sends out emergency preparedness packages containing a radio, plastic sheets, and duct tape to certain zones. These are zones where you're instructed to plastic and tape up your windows and doors and pray to Jesus as you listen to the radio and prepare to die.
I also like the sound weapons where you disable enemies with a giant dog whistle thing.
All I know is there is nothing anybody could tell me to convince me our brilliant govt spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, on destroying chemical weapons. And if something like that were happening, you definitely would not know the details the operation.
* i believe they handed out mucho contracts to special people and then kept a lot of the chemicals.
The only other US stockpile was Pueblo Colorado in the middle of nowhere and they successfully burned the chemical agents.
Richmond is a big deal because it's the first time chemicals will be neutralized with water, and we all might die in the name of science.
*also, each part of town has big signs telling you what zone you are in, so if the crap hits the fan, you are supposed to know your zone and follow the plan. Also, the county sends out emergency preparedness packages containing a radio, plastic sheets, and duct tape to certain zones. These are zones where you're instructed to plastic and tape up your windows and doors and pray to Jesus as you listen to the radio and prepare to die.
It's much better as it has much deeper penetration which was ideal for taking out those tunnels.
I didn't even know we had a conventional bomb this size, I thought the 5000 bunker buster was the biggest. This thing requires a C-130 to delivery it - that's massive.
Mash, what the hell are you worried about? Do you think the government of the people, by the people, for the people would lie to you about something as badass as chemical weapons? Grab a coke and a magazine and relax pal.
Sarin gas has a relatively short half life or shelf life, something like that. I believe after a short time it's kind of like a puppy who's been squirted by a skunk. Or some such.
Woot Woot! Welcome back. Since you've been gone we've figured out lot's of things you had no idea about. It will be great to see your knowledge base grow.
Whoops, was thinking this was the political thread. Why do you think they call it bourbon? Anyway, now that we've discussed it, come on back to the political thread with your misnomer of "liberal wisdom". They need your help.
The locals threw a hissy fits because of the depot was secretly burning stockpiles in open pits back in the 70's.
Around 50 people were hospitalized is burning eyes and respiratory problems in the late 70's when a large cloud of fumes drifted toward i-75.
The Army then wanted to 1.ship the munitions out 2. burn them on site in an incinerator.
I think the people of Richmond preferred them to be shipped out but you would have to deal with every city in route to Pueblo, Co. You think the mayor of Lexington would be willing to let nerve gas to be convoyed through?
With the loss of trust between the local community and depot, no one wanted an on-site incinerator. There's a worry that once built they would ship munitions from other sites for disposal.
Overall it was/is a bad location for a storage site, Richmond is one the fastest growing cities in the state.
Some pencil pushing Pentagon tard decided steal some farmers' land and put a superfund site next to the community.
Great! hopefully that includes all things science - you've always been my go-to guy for that.
Touche'Great! hopefully that includes all things science - you've always been my go-to guy for that.